1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-This petition was dismissed for non-pro--secution by order dated the 29th June 1967. Neither the Attorney nor the Counsel attended the Court that day. It has been explained by the Attorney, Mr. Abid Nawaz Abid, that : the case originally figured in the list of the Full Court issued for the 26th to 29th of June, 1967 and that only the 28th the Bench was changed and this petition was assigned for hearing to Bench of three Judges. Mr. Abid Nawaz says that he was under the impression that the case being laid down on the list was not likely to come up on the 28th, and when he came on the 29th, to enquire about its he was told at about 12.0(1 noon, that the petition had been dismissed.He applied the very next day for its restoration. After hearing his explanation, we order that the petition be restored and heard on: the merits. We have however, given him warning that he should, watch: the cases more vigilantly in future.
2. On the merits we find little-ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court; dismissing the writ petition, filed by Sheikh Muhammad, Hafiz Ullah. The petitioner and the respon--dent were both occupants of a premises and they are both claimants. The department had divided the property between them in accordance with their possession. This order was well within the jurisdiction of the departmental authorities, and the High Court was right in upholding -it as valid.
3. 'Mr. Dilawar Mahmood was unable to suggest any solid reasons for interference with the order of the departmental authorities in that behalf.
4. The alternative stand adopted by Mr. Dilawar Mahmood was that the appeal of the respondent before, the Additional Settlement Commissioner from the order of the Deputy Settlement Commis- -sioner, was barred by time, and that there was nothing to show in the order of that officer that he had condoned the delay. The learned counsel, however, concedes that apparently this point had not been taken before any of the departmental authorities and it was too late in the day for such a point to be taken for the first time in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
5. There was also laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the High Court. The impugned order was passed in 1962 and the Writ Petition was filed only in 1966. This by itself was a sufficient, ground for denying relief to the-petitioner.
6. We see no force in this petition for special leave to appeal and dismiss the petition.